Talk:Assault Cannon/@comment-12494172-20160307124553/@comment-4391208-20160310034119
Relative speed is a positive number because one is faster than the other, they are closing. [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rest-frame A frame of reference relative to which a given body is at rest.] You'll have a relative speed at 80 kph tank with 100 kph enemies. They both start running. Relative speed is a positive number because one is faster than the other, they are closing. The closing rate is 20 kph. I did not *arbitrarily* limit the speed to 20 kph. Infact I was expecting 80 kph if you took off all the protection you don't need. You remember what I said about knowing the settings? It's 70+pkh MBTs to 80kph enemies. But okay. I'll give that to you. So you'll just spend the battle running backwards, then? Because if relative speed is 20kph out of two moving bodies, then they have to be moving in the same direction for the relative speed to be less than that of each of their moving speeds. Because you wanted to break through, as specified in your third comment, their approach speed, or relative speed as you want to put it that way, against Tank-class would be at 160km/h. If against Destroyers, that would be at 250km/h. That's the cruising speed of aircrafts and TSFs. Your guns have a range of merely 4 kilometers. If you turn tail and run while firing all guns, you can still outrun Tanks assuming your ideal conditions of there being only Tanks and Grapplers. This ignores Destroyers, uneven terrain restricting speed, turn time, tunneling BETA, expected accuracy rates at maximum range, etc. Not that you have answered any of these possible variables at all when asked to. Actually no, the numbers aren't arbitrary. Because the actual mount weighs in at one metric ton. And the actual gun at around 100 kg. Do you feel inclined to specify the gun yet or do I have to keep asking? Because the lightest listed weight for the 3.7cm Flak xx series used by Germany in WWII, the most major type of 37mm guns that they have ever used, that I can find, weighs in at about 400+ kg at lightest.(Encyclopedia of World War II, Volume 1) Mount weight tops at 2 tons. But let us assume that you are correct. Are you ever going to tell me the model of your 37mm gun so I can see for myself? Or are you going to handwave it like what you've been doing? I've been assuming you know what a roof mounted MG is. Have you even googled my use of the terminology; secondary, roof mounted, and anti aircraft mounts... I make it a point to ask for what MBT you'd want to use and how you are going to arrange the weapons. You piss all over me with a WWII example and a self-aggrandizing lecture on what is a mount - which answers nothing. Terminology, by the way, goes as such; the MG mounted on tanks is a "coaxial mount" because of its 3-dimensional pointing direction due to its mount. A "roof-mounted" gun is a general term that can describe any mounted guns like the MGs on MBTs as long as they're on a roof structure or positioning. A "secondary mount" is also a general term that can be used to denote a weapons mount that isn't the primary weapon of the vehicle in question, a case being the M1A Abram's three MG turrets/mounts. An anti-aircraft mount is anything from a specially-manufactured turret for vehicles to the simple M3AA mount for the Browning; most of them could also be considered coaxial. There is no specific typing. The mounts are built to what is required of their specifications. Each type is unique to its weapons system and vehicle. You tell me to Google. This is the information I have obtained from Google, including Google's directed sources, such as e-versions of books and public papers, which runs counter to the explanation you gave, which implied that these are specific terminology. I do not appreciate being LIED to in my face. Do you know why I keep asking? Because you don't seem to understand the size of guns and vehicles - at all -. Have you ever hefted an MG onto a vehicle mount? Have you ever seen a Leopard 2 and a M113 parked side-by-side, comparing the size of a Rheinmetall-equipped MBT turret to that of the Bushmaster on the M113? Have you ever been inside a MBT, bring pointed to the various crew support systems, ammo storage spaces? Ever seen people handling practice 25mm shells up close, told stories by people who were there of how their impacts blew chunks out of target items in live fire exercises? Ever handled autocannon rounds with your bare hands? Your size comparisons amount to "oh some cars have more space than this MBT" - it doesn't really say anything other than you being eager to show off how much you "know", considering that a car doesn't have to house an all-terrain suspension, cannon systems, a rotating turret, crew support systems, air filters, heavy-duty engine, and several tons of armor and other tertiary equipment - even assuming that your MBT has had all redundant armor removed. What's the point? Of course cars have more space than MBTs, they're civilian vehicles made for comfort. You keep making this car comparision but it doesn't really mean anything outside of some inexplicable reason that you're not revealing. Even if every MBT had redundant systems and electronics stripped out from their interiors, you would still be hard-pressed to equip them with any sizable amount of ammunition. TSFs can be reloaded on the field, they can reload their own guns and carry multiple spares without the pilot getting off or with support crew on-site; MBTs have only one ammo pool to draw from and have to return to designated areas and stockpiles becase your ammo truck can't survive moving around on the frontlines and ordinary humans can't reload at combat speeds unless you tack a work exoskeleton on the back of the MBT. But what do you know? You only care about how good it sounds to have a 37mm autocannon on an MBT. I don't like to leverage personal experience because it's unique to the individual. You, however, seem to be running on something else entirely that is definitely neither experience or hard numbers. Again. You haven't even read my last few posts and it has gone nowhere. I say again, the additional cannon mount is for the just incase situations. TSF's can't be everywhere at all times. Why you keep on insisting that I'm trying to teleport it to some neverland where none of those obstacles are in the way I don't know. Hey that reminds me, you tried to say I was doing the same thing with the TSF's Really? Since I recall saying that the 7.62mm MG was situational too. That didn't stop you jumping on it for "6 kills per MG, how impressive". I figured that if you were doing it, I would, too - oh wait, I didn't, I listed my chosen example, instead of writing my own ideal scenario on how things would go. I haven't used anything that hasn't happened in the MLUL/A series. Not that you seem to realize it. If you don't want people to call you out on your self-make scenarios, perhaps you shouldn't have written all these then: What would happen if tanks encountered a huge mass of tank class BETA accidentally. What if they ended up behind a herd of Destroyer class BETA? What if they out flanked their opponents intentionally or accidentally. Instead of using examples within the series to prove how your idea could work, you write your own that features cut-down conditions. If you want to talk about going nowhere, you're the only one driving yourself there. What's probably the most annoying part... I've been asking you for exact number of guns from my third post onward precisely because I wanted to clarify. It takes you two more posts to your latest one to definitively tell me you have a 120mm and a 37mm. I'm still waiting for what happened to the 40mm and the 25mm mentioned by you. Are they still in or not? If you would just stop for a moment to answer, that'll be great. The best part? The 37mm is disused while the 40mm and the 35mm guns became the primary weapon types for anti-aircraft guns into the Cold War and beyond. So you're using old stock that no longer has logistics support, factory line capability, and required mechanic knowledge to maintain them, compared to other gun type(s), at least for the 35mm, that are still in full production in MLUL/A, and would have no issue ramping up factory output to outfit your MBTs with. Bravo. You would rather risk logistical apocalypse for your units than make sure that the are reliable at all times. You aren't the first person to ask why MBTs don't have more advanced weapons. One idea I have seen was an automated 25mm secondary gun turret replacing the MG on a standard M1 Abrams, which is a lot more believable than a 37mm autocannon in weight, maintenance, ammo storage, and logistics usability. It was bumped to a 2-man MBT due to ammo storage issues, but it made allowances for the consideration of advanced construction of lighter mounting technology/other internal components made possible by super carbon composites, and the possibility of advanced sighting/targeting technology being fed back to other parts of the military, example being exterior cameras connected to the driver/commander who are wearing the adapted headgear of Eishi with their helmets (which, in case you do not realize their other usage outside of head protection against external shrapnel threats, also serves to protect the heads of the operators from the often cluttered interior of their own vehicle), and a tertiary 12.7mm MG on a third automated mount to defend against extreme close range attacks. You, on the other hand, suggest putting old stuff on MBTs and expect it to be better without changing the underlying technology. With the addition of you saying that BEA is better when it's harder but more brittle since cutting is one of its functions, despite 36mm AP rounds being the closest to typical hypervelocity impacts that occupy one of the top spots in lists of "things that destroy brittle materials". You are the one who said that you considered it only for TSF vs TSF combat - yet you gimp it against TSFs guided by electronic targeting systems which react faster than you can strive against the forces of physics in not running into your opponent's line of fire. Why do you think modern MBT armor strives on preventing full contact with the shell instead? Why do aircrafts carry flares and chaff? Why do infantry emphasis on taking cover? Why do MBTs practice hull-down? Do you think any of these depend heavily on maneuverability for their effectiveness? Don't want to get hit? Why not use stealth and maneuverability, or jamming and maneuverability, both proven in the series with the F-22A Raptor or the XFJ-01aP3 Shiranui Second Phase 3? It is the design of the edge of the weapon that lends itself to cutting. The hardest sword can't cut anything if you don't sharpen it. The hardness concerns durability against impacts on surfaces. Maybe that's why it doesn't feel like you haven't actually been reading my posts hmm? You mean "it does feel like". Double negative is a positive. You talk about reading. But you list MBT specs without specifying the MBT, you post a WWII picture for a lecture on mounts when the question was "how many guns" and not "how are you going to mount them", you list numbers but you never answer questions about strategic scenarios. Any Joe out on the streets can list numbers. But when asked on reactions for scenarios your best answer so far is "well, shoot them then". You started the chain with "why don't other people get 36mm?" but suddenly change to 37/40/25mm and "old stock" that might not even exist, and spend more money re-adapting and re-purposing stock that is no longer used -at all- instead of simply asking for more 35mm/36mm which is the most economic-saving option and with existing factory and mechanic expertise for adaptation to new mounts. You ignore the existence of SPAAGs/ZSU-23-4 which does the exact same thing as you have described so vaguely all around - in MLUL/A the Shilka is considered in the same category as the Japanese SPAAG, which says a lot about the minimum firepower required to killing Tanks and Grapplers considering that it carries 4x 23mm autocannons while the SPAAG uses 4x 35mm. Tactics play the larger role in how you maximize resources to kill as many BETA as possible, not how many discontinued weapons you paste on your armored vehicle. You call your 37mm a primarily defensive armament against "what ifs" later on but do it in the same comment that has you saying that MBTs can randomly encounter roaming BETA, especially Lasers which are situated as rear as can be, or find themselves breaking through a line - all of which are examples of offensive maneuvers. You can't differentiate between numbers taken from the real world from the need for a bit of critical scenario thinking required in talking about a series that has no real solid numbers beyond basic stats; you compare killing an aircraft, a finely-tuned vehicle that will destroy itself if you hit the right spot, with killing a Tank-class, which will continue to attempt to eat you if you do not put it down and ensure that it is dead. Oh, I am reading your posts. I wouldn't bother to situate my replies to answering specific lines and paragraphs otherwise. You, on the other hand, have to be prodded for explanation every time you comment because you just don't seem to care about making yourself clear-cut to the other side and would rather ramble on and on. I list everything in your comments about how you do not consider the settings you are using to make your ideas, but you pick and choose the problems you want to answer and spit in my face with poor-quality snark. Question is, are you giving me the same courtesy? No, never in a single comment. Even if it's yes, I'm not seeing it, because every post out of you is a deflection of mine by randomly listing specifications as though numbers from the factory are any indicator of possible field/tactical/strategic performance, thrown in for reasons only you would know. You are on the ML Wikia saying how you're going to make MBTs in MLUL/A great, while ignoring everything that made them situationally bad in the first place. You are not solving their issues, you are ignoring them. You are nicked? Try imagining how it's like to be misled four times like what you did to me.